starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
StarCraft Wiki talk:Manual of style
Nicely done Meco! I think we also need an anti-spam policy. PsiSeveredHead 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Perhaps we need a category of articles called Guidelines and Policies that we could shuffle everything like this under. So this article would be called Article Style or something, and then we could add to the list as needed. Might be helpful to go see what other wikis do for this sort of thing. --Meco 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Proposed Policy Note: This is pretty much a ramble and I'm probably going to end up sounding like an arrogant ass. Still, there are basically a few policies I'd like to suggest as to the creation and organisation of certain articles. Note that this is something basically off the top of my head. Basically, the 'edits' of a certain 'user' got me thinking. Overview It's an odd paradox really; StarCraft is an expansive universe, yet only has around 427 articles. For someone who spends time among wikis such as wowwiki and Halopedia, the differences are stark. Of course, some of this is to be expected; WOW is an MMORPG and is therefore more expansive than many other games, As for Halopedia...well, Halo's expansive and all, but when 'articles' include crates like P-45 which appear in a level, you kind of get an idea as to how it has 3,000+ articles, along with the question of how many are really articles and how many are based on crates and communism (yes, there's actually an article on communism there. Go figure). I think this wiki has been lucky in its timing, or unlucky depending on one's POV. 2005; seven years since the original game has been released, 3 since the last novel and SC Ghost in development hell. There probably wasn't enough popularity to make it a boom into a wiki featuring everything from Jim Raynor to the "Welcome to Mar Sara" signpost and whatever crates the colony may have had. (Hawki) I'd say mostly unlucky it seems. PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) :The reason why everybody else has bundles of articles is that they give every distinct object, no matter how trivial, its own article. I actually favour that sort of thing since, in my view, it makes organizing and finding things things much easier. :For example, if we had every character in its own article, we could potentially make a "Character Category" where you could go to look up a character, any character, with ease. (Especially if you're using the Search feature. And that's another thing: with every object in its own article, the search feature works much better.) :More reasons include simpler article structure (for example, our Ultralisk article has essentially a unit article within a unit article in the form of the Torrasque), ease of incorporation of future information (if certain subjects suddenly have an influx of info, the infrastructure, article and links, are already in place to accommodate it, instead of having to create a new article then fiddle with any links that have to be changed, we have a lot of 'links to article sections' right now), and just all round uniformity of method. --Meco 04:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC) One problem with the "links to article sections" is a software issue; until fairly recently, redirects to a part of a page didn't work (they just went to the top). If all the Esmerelda Ndoci links had been working right when Ghost: Nova came out, then there wouldn't be any "Annihilators#Major Disaster" links, and that would have made it really easy to give her her own page if/when more information came out. That's just an example. PsiSeveredHead 04:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Of course, with SC2 announced, things look set to change. If there is indeed the same boom here that there is/was at the other two wikis I mentioned, there's going to be two basic things; stubs and what barely count as articles. There have been some good merging policies to prevent this, but even so, they're not without their shortcomings and at best, feel like a temporary measure. I've made some articles out of these mergers, some of which were probably stretching the merger policy, Epsilon Squadron in particular. Basically, here's the ideas; Policy 1: S3 S3: "Simplicity, singularity and succintness." Basically this refers to something that already exists, namely in the locations articles. This is basically the notion that events and locations not be sub-divided. Korhal is an example; how its history and sub-locations are in a single article and how we don't have articles such as "Nuking of Korhal" or "The Battle of Augustrad"; articles which a certain wiki I could name would feature. The same applies to units too, the Goliath being an example. Its history should go in the article itself, we don't need an article of "Development of the Goliath." However, there are exceptions, hence the "succintness" aspect (I know I'm not spelling that right). StarCraft is an expansive universe but not always that detailed. However, there are exceptions, the Ghosts being an example. We have a wide array of history leading up to the game unit, history which MAY go on too long. Perhaps in this case, it might be better to have a "See main article: Ghost Program." Not everyone is into lore and to include an expansive case of lore in a game unit article may be counter-productive. Similarly is the Old Families, merged into the Confederacy. While an integral part of the lore, it feels...clutterred somehow, not to mention that there's characters listed in a faction article (more on this later). Hawki Yes, I agree with you. When a lot of these articles were started (eg the Old Families) they weren't worthy of being articles on their own. I've noticed you've been turning article sections (such as Omega Squadron) into full articles, expanding them until they're worth it. This is something I agree with. You don't need to ask permission to make a good article. Now, I wish I read that before I turned the Old Families page into a redirect. PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Of course, this is potentially dangerous, as what prompts an exception and what doesn't is subjective. Still, there's surely a happy balance between 1, 2 and 3 of the Ss. I was thinking of creating the Ghost Program while editing the Ghost section, but thought it best to get feedback on the idea before violating current policy. Hawki Making a Ghost program article wouldn't be a violation of policy. (I don't think it even said anything about that on the policy page.) It simply means we would have to change a lot of links. That takes time, but it can be done. PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Policy 2: Lists are Bad, Categories are Good I've pretty much dug my own grave here, creating lists of weapons, equipment and media. Let's face it, a list of nebulously related things is basically a category in compressed form, the end result looking...messy. I think it would work better if more categories are made, such as sub-categories to Terrans, namely weapons, media, etc. Weapons could even be a sub-category of technology. Hawki Are you suggesting taking well-known or fairly detailed systems like Gauss rifles into their own pages? That would be fine (and you've done so, and no one complained). What would you do with the repeating pistol, however? If it's still too small to be it's own article, maybe it should still be in a list. PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Of course, there are things in these lists that probably wouldn't prompt articles of their own. We know that Saluset has ice wastes and nothing else. We know that Rumm had a Repeating Pistol and a life story of said pistol does not a non-stub article make. However, there are things in these articles that could definetly warrant full articles; planets like Bhekar Ro and Bountiful, weapons such as the Cannister Rifle. At the end of the day, perhaps a list could still exist of the exceedingly minor ones, but it depends on how many are left. Info is info, and when you apply it, even the 'givens' of the StarCraft universe, you could even have full articles for stuff like Tal Qirat and the P Series. Hawki I could picture the P-series getting their own page. Planets like Bhekar Rho and Bountiful are detailed enough to get their own pages now, too. I don't know about Tal Qirat though. We have about one sentence on it. PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Policy 3: Templates are Good. VERY Good This isn't really a policy so much, but simply an idea for something that will probably take off anyway. Templates have already proven their worth in the StarCraft units. Their worth goes even furthur, as categories, while better than lists, are not without their problems, namely being too expansive. Templates allow succintness in related articles that can't really fit into a category. One such idea is one for the Confederate forces, which would be something like this; Major Forces: Marine Corps, Colonial Fleet Squadrons: Alpha, Delta, etc. Minor Forces: Army, Air Force A template would look different of course, but that's the general idea. We can't have a category for Confederate forces, but a template serves well and looks...'professional.' Hawki I'm sure this makes sense, but the example completely confuses me. PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Policy 4: Characters Of all these policies, it's perhaps characters that are the most problamatic in the 'merger policy.' One of StarCraft's main strengths is its characters IMO, something that Blizzard's other universes can't match right now (with "a band of adventurers killed Illidan" in Warcraft and "a lone warrior defeated Baal" in Diablo, it's easy to see why). With characters being merged, it feels like a 'betrayal' somehow. Ideology aside, there are utilitarian purposes for this too. Nova and Constantino Terra are examples. We have the rest of the Terra family merged with Nova, yet not with her father. And don't get me started on Breanne from 'Speed of Darkness'; merging an entire platoon and seperating the main characters from the minor ones would be hell. Hawki Do you think we could make minor characters like Annabella Terra and Zebediah Terra an entry in the "List of Minor Terrans" then? I don't think there's enough information for them to be anything more than a stub, but moving them out of the Nova/Constantino Terra pages seems like a good idea. This also means characters like "The Pitcher" would get moved from Fagin's article to Minor Terrans or, in some cases, their own article. Of course, that would leave us needing a new policy to deal with exceedingly minor characters, like Rebekah. PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Basically, if a character has enough info not to be a stub, then he/she should be independent. If a character template can be used (affiliation, role, etc.), then this is basically non-stub material guaranteed, broardly speaking. This includes characters such as Tom Kazansky and Ulli Trey. Of course, there are relatively major characters without distinct affiliations, Jake Ramsey's team being an example. Still, a template could suffice here. Hawki Alright, yes, I agree with you. Could you write a Tom Kazansky article? Right now he's still stub material (and his allegiance is unknown, due to Enslavers I's branching.) PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Of course, there are REALLY minor characters that don't prompt such attention, the minor characters listed in the Squadrons being examples. Still, when it comes to character lists in main articles, such as Raynor's Raiders, I still think that for most of them, enough info could be scrounged up. As for Fagin, his subordinates could be divided into Major Subordinates (with links to full articles such as Ralian and Morwood) and Minor Subordinates, where a list is. Maybe someday there will be time to create full articles, but best to go after the big fish first. Policy 5: Canon Heh, I think we know where this is going. Or not. No, I'm not going to suggest that what we decide is canon is based purely on recent portrayals and no, I don't believe that the Koprulu Sector has been settled for millenia or that the Guild Wars lasted seven years. The current canon policy is a god guideline. However, I think there are other things to consider, namely implications and quantity. Here's an example of each; Duke's rank (Quantity) Colonel or General? There's evidence both for and against. With the current canon policy it would be General, 'nuff said. Games triumph over novels after all. However, when one cross referances this evidence; "Been a General for fifteen years" is a gag quote. Not related to the storyline. This is the ONLY piece of evidence for Duke's rank; a gag quote which is not even part of the main storyline. Consider the Colonel stuff; Uprising: "He was sure he would be made a general for this." LC: He was way overdue for his general's stars..." Notice how general is mentioned both times. Nielson was almost certainly aware of the discrepency, hence the general comments. These are efforts to link to the storyline, not discrepencies. Basically, I think it's safe to let Duke be a Colonel at least until Episode I, as we don't have much to go on. Hawki I agree that Uprising should trump the "gag quote". However, Liberty's Crusade made a distinct error. Duke introduces himself in Terran mission one as General, whereas Liberty's Crusade overwrote that (for instance, when he arrests Raynor). PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Artanis (Implications) At first impression, Artanis' role as the Executor in QoB feels like a poor tie-in. However, considering that the concept of a player character is being dropped and we don't know for sure whether Executor and Praetor is a higher rank, I think it's safe to say that he is indeed the player character. I doubt whether throwing him in could simply be an oversight. As such, while seemingly in contradiction to the game, the nature of such contradiction makes it feel like an implied retcon (and technically, it never fully contradicts it). Hawki Much of the "canonicity" of Queen of Blades was so poorly handled I don't think we should speculate that Artanis was actually the new Exectuor. (Isn't Executor a higher rank than Praetor? If so, that means Artanis was de'''moted.) I think that counts as an error, or at most a potential error. (Wowwiki has a slightly better way of dealing with this.) PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) '''Overall I'm sure that this has been mentioned before and it's not the first time I've touched on the subject. The merger policy has kept things under control and done a good job of it. However, StarCraft's popularity looks set to grow and the wiki feels too clutterred at times to reflect this. Of course, if such a policy is accepted, I don't intend to create a whole series of stubs and expand upon them later, a problem which wowwiki faces right now. Basically, this is me asking permission to create and/or expand such articles before doing so, before I end up creating full articles for planets such as Tal Qirat and characters such as Johnny Raynor (shot). Perhaps this isn't the best place to voice such ideas, but I thought it best to voice this here than in a user page or on respective article pages. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go edit some crates;)--Hawki 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) You do have "permission" to do so. You're also an administrator now - I wouldn't have promoted you unless I trusted you to make the wiki a lot better. I'm aware that I'm not "perfect" or anything (like being a control freak), and other people are going to do things differently from me, often in a better way. The articles are mostly the way they are because, until fairly recently, I've been the only really active administrator. Furthermore, if or when the wiki gets a lot more contributors, I'm going to have to let go of the reins, even if that means I have to be dragged kicking and screaming from them, so challenging me gets me used to that idea. :) PsiSeveredHead 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Self Sufficency In light of the recent edit to the UED page, I think it's better if the article is kept. Having multiple links within the article simply means a lot of jumping around. It's best if the entire history of the UED is kept in the article rather than links to said history IMO. Feels too clutterred in its current state too.--Hawki 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, the UPL and UED could be seperated into two articles.--Hawki 03:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I think Meco had a point about the repetition, actually. The early UED material is exactly the same as in the Terran section. I think that an abbreviated version of the UPL history should be used, although I'm not sure if the full version should be in the Terran section or the UED section. (If the UPL gets its own page, it's still going to overlap quite heavily with the Terran history section, as they're basically the same thing.) PsiSeveredHead 04:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Now that I think about it, maybe we need a new racial history policy. The Terrans are really divided, whereas the Zerg are really united (there were no splits until after the game started; indeed, not until the very end of the original StarCraft was there any split). We might have to come up with three different policies to sort out this mess. PsiSeveredHead 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC) In the meantime I put a "short form" of the UPL and Long Sleep information back into the UED article. I think at least the basic info is needed, otherwise the article makes less sense. PsiSeveredHead 04:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC) As it stands, the race articles do their job well, acting as summaries. I think that the UED/UPL is really the only exception in that its actions dominated history throughout the 23rd century until the launching of the ships. As a general policy, I think race articles should be kept as summarries while all others act self-sufficently. Perhaps the Terran article needs scaling down rather than the UED one.--Hawki 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC) UED/Terran history is such a special case; we should probably hash it out over their talk pages instead. I agree with racial articles being a summary. PsiSeveredHead 12:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC) I ended up making its own article. There's still repetition, but other than Project Purification, I don't think it's possible to avoid it. PsiSeveredHead 02:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Categories I've been wondering about the nature of certain catagories, about how there's general overlap. I think it's best to subdivide the race catagories (eg. Terran characters, Terran units, etc.) but keep anything Terran in the Terran catagory (eg. Jim Raynor would be in both Catagory: Terrans and Catagory: Terran characters). I've edited a few catagories but stopped short, deciding to get feedback. It would take a lot of editing work if the wrong thing was carried out. Basically it's a question of purely subdividing and/or fully retaining in overall catagories.--Hawki 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) I recall at wikipedia when we were hashing out categories; I kept putting things into "category: StarCraft" along with other categories and other contributors kept undoing that. It turned out they had a good argument for it. It's too early in the morning for me to remember that argument, but I think Raynor should just go into category: Terran characters. He can be found in the category: Terrans link anyway, by clicking on the category: Terran characters subdirectory link. (If said link isn't there, I can add it easily enough.) PsiSeveredHead 12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC) So basically we should purely subdivide?--Hawki 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Locations I think that we may have (well, technically not "have") to do something about the merging of articles in locations, in that when one considers the maps of such places, there isn't enough room to merge them. Aiur is a perfect example; the Citadel of the Executor barely fits and when one considers all the other locations...overlap galore. I have an idea of how to deal with this via catagories, namely that there'd be one overarching Category: Locations, subdivided into planets, sectors, systems, reigons, etc.--Hawki 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Tense I don't know if the policies we have for "tenses" make sense. Right now, everything written in-universe is supposed to be written in the past tense, but I think units that exist in StarCraft II should use the current tense to describe them. (For instance, the Probe article was recently edited, and now it would look like the Probe was removed to people who are reading the page.) PsiSeveredHead 23:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC) When I first scarped together the policy, I was thinking that each unit would have a History section (lately this has just been an Overview section), and history is more or less written in the past tense. I don't mind if the in-universe sections all go to present tense, but for the sake of uniformity, they should all go to it. In my mind, whether a unit has been removed from the game or not is irrelevant. For one, even a 'removed' unit may still exist in the SC universe somewhere. Surely some Goliaths, or Science Vessels, etc. are still trundling around, and may yet be encountered in future novels set post-BW or something. --Meco 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree with Meco. If a unit has a set of properties that remains in the current era, it should be in the present tense. If a set of properties no longer exists, it is in the past tense. Suppose for the Marine, that CMC-400 armor became standard. It would be stated that that they wore CMC armor, but now wear CMC-400 armor. Of course, that hasn't happened, so it's written in the present tense. As for characters, factions, planets, etc. everything should be written in past tense up to the current era IMO. Eg. the Kel-Morian Combine was founded on Moria and is currently engaged against the Dominion.--Hawki 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Except you're not really agreeing with Meco; he's saying that the overview section should either totally be past tense or totally be present tense. (I think it should fit the situation, just as Hawki believes.) PsiSeveredHead 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Suggested policies Sample gaming wikia policies: http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/BioShock_Wiki:Manual_of_Style PsiSeveredHead 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)